ARTICLE
23 February 2024

Judge Gilstrap: For Implementers Of SEPs, The Penitent Will Pass

AV
Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider

Contributor

Axinn combines the skills, experience and dedication of the world’s largest firms with the focus, responsiveness, efficiency and attention to client needs of the best boutiques. The firm was established with a common vision: provide the highest level of service and strategic acumen in antitrust, intellectual property and high-stakes litigation.
According to Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, obligations to negotiate under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

According to Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, obligations to negotiate under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms apply not only to standard essential patent (SEP) holders but to implementers of those standards as well. If an implementer does not act in good faith, then the SEP-holder's obligations to do so might even be suspended, according to a recent opinion.

In the past few years, multiple jurisdictions outside the United States have found that implementers not only have an obligation to negotiate in good faith, but when implementers fail to do so, they may waive their FRAND defenses. For instance, in certain European countries, a SEP holder might be able to seek royalties that are not reasonable when faced with a bad-faith implementer. Yet, in the United States, this law is still in development. Opinions on FRAND obligations have grown rare because since the Federal Circuit's decision in TCL v. Ericsson, juries are generally empowered to determine the fate of FRAND defenses, rather than judges. So, the question remained: Do SEP implementers need to negotiate in good faith?

According to a January 22, 2024 decision in G+ Communications v. Samsung Electronics, the answer is yes. At least, eventually. Judge Gilstrap found that a SEP-holder's FRAND obligations are irrevocable but may be suspended when an implementer is acting in bad faith. But that suspension is only temporary. According to the opinion, "[i]f the bad faith actor ceases its bad faith and begins acting in good faith, the good faith negotiations must also resume." However, if that bad faith actor does not change its ways, then it might be liable for damages in excess of a FRAND royalty rate, including "attorney's fees and the cost of litigation." A penitent company, therefore, may still reach the holy grail of a FRAND license.

It is both practical and logical that the obligations of a party acting in good faith be suspended when a counterparty to a negotiation for a FRAND license is acting in bad faith.

casetext.com/...

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More